“Donald Trump has continually tried to instill policies that penalize diversity. His administration’s attempt to shortchange immigrants by changing public charge threatens our public health and destroys communities that have immigrant populations who make these places across America great,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who brought the lawsuit that led to the ruling on Monday night in the federal district courthouse here.
And here, by way of background, is the February 2020 Ninth Circuit appellate ruling, a very solid 97 page opinion out of California:
. . .Regarding § 1182(a)(4)(B), we have recognized that this provision establishes “factors [that] are to be considered ‘at a minimum,’” but “[o]ther factors may be considered as well, giving officials considerable discretion in their decisions.” City & Cty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 944 F.3d 773, 972 (9th Cir. 2019). The Proclamation does not permit any exercise of official discretion, as the enumerated § 1182(a)(4)(B) factors do, but instead imposes an absolute bar on the entry of uninsured immigrants. For instance, one of the individual Plaintiffs has submitted evidence that he could add his wife to his employer’s healthcare plan once she obtained a social security card, but social security cards are not mailed quickly enough to meet the 30-day deadline mandated by the Proclamation.
Even in this situation, the consular officer has no discretion to consider that the Plaintiff’s wife can obtain an approved health insurance plan and that this factor would weigh against finding that she is likely to become a public charge under § 1182(a)(4)(B). Instead the officer must find that she is inadmissible because she cannot obtain this insurance within 30 days. Without the Proclamation, the officer would have the discretion to consider her admissible, as § 1182(a)(4)(B) intended. In sum, the Proclamation’s health insurance requirement supplants the discretion afforded to consular officers in § 1182(a)(4)(B). . . .
[In addition,] the Proclamation’s perfunctory time limitations do not comport with the textual limits of § 1182(f); and second, § 1182(f) does not provide the President with limitless power to deny visas to immigrants based on purely long-term economic concerns. . . .
Now you know. Now. . . please do go vote -- if you haven't early voted, already. As you do, I'd ask you to think about whether you want more of the above mindless cruelty, or a more-unified nation -- "out of many, one", here in America.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment